Keepers' rating of emotions in captive big cats, and their use in determining responses to different types of enrichment

Phillips, Clive J. C.; Tribe, A.; Lisle, Allan; Galloway, Talia K.; Hansen, Kathryn

doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2017.03.006

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Qualitative measurement of welfare and other holistic concepts such as animal emotionality are becoming increasingly favoured, in part due to the discovery that they are accurate and reliable but also because they have practical benefits (Wemelsfelder et al, 2000; Rutherford et al, 2012; Fleming et al, 2013). Qualitative measures such as those used in this study allows the harnessing of holistic knowledge from those caretakers who know the animals’ behaviour and welfare the best (Whitham and Wielebnowski, 2009; Phillips et al, 2017), and up until now has not yet been exploited in dolphin research, despite the many hours of daily close physical contact spent between animal and caretaker. Such a tool, which is simple to execute accurately, generates meaningful data and facilitates daily monitoring of the animals, would be very valuable to captive dolphin management (Clegg et al, 2015, 2017b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dolphins’ Willingness to Participate (WtP) in Positive Reinforcement Training as a Potential Welfare Indicator, Where WtP Predicts Early Changes in Health Status

Clegg

Rödel

Mercera³

et al. 2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Welfare science has built its foundations on veterinary medicine and thus measures of health. Since bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) tend to mask symptoms of poor health, management in captivity would benefit from advanced understanding on the links between health and behavioural parameters, and few studies exist on the topic. In this study, four representative behavioural and health measures were chosen: health status (as qualified by veterinarians), percentage of daily food eaten, occurrences of new rake marks (proxy measure of social activity), and willingness to participate (WtP) in Positive Reinforcement Training sessions as qualitatively measured by their caretakers. These data were collected multiple times a day, every day over the course of a year from a multi-facility, large sample size (ndolphins = 51), allowing powerful analyses of the relationships between measures. First, it was found that dolphins with a higher WtP score also had a significantly better health status, ate a higher percentage of their daily food, and a lower occurrence of new rake marks. In addition, the WtP score was significantly lower up to 3 days before the weekly veterinary diagnosis of a decrease in health state; the percentage of daily food eaten and new rake mark measures did not show any significant change before such a diagnosis. These results suggest that WtP in training sessions is a potential behavioural measure of dolphin welfare, and an indicator of early changes in the dolphins’ health state. We therefore suggest measurement of WtP as a more practical and non-invasive tool to support veterinary care and general management. More work needs to be conducted to elucidate the influence of social behaviour on health, and to identify other potential welfare indicators, but this long-term study has shown that qualitative measures can be both practical and valid when assessing dolphin welfare.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dolphins’ Willingness to Participate (WtP) in Positive Reinforcement Training as a Potential Welfare Indicator, Where WtP Predicts Early Changes in Health Status

Clegg

Rödel

Mercera³

et al. 2019

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Journal of Veterinary Behavior (JVB) has published manuscripts on the behavior, welfare, and strategies for improving the welfare of species such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) in aquaculture (King, 2009), working therapy dogs studied in outpatient hospital settings (Clark et al, 2019), pet gray parrots (Psittacus erithacus; Greenwell & Montrose, 2017), cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), tigers (Panthera tigris, Phillips et al, 2017), snakes (Warwick et al, 2019), and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla gorilla; Fuller & Allard, 2018) under different management systems. Thus, while the JVB publication of manuscripts about nondomestic animals is not unusual, opposition to human management of a species without clinical applications or research that improves animal welfare appears to be atypical.…”

Section: Are Killer Whales Different?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

Kathleen¹,

Heather²,

Zaccaroni³

et al. 2020

IJCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We contest publication of Marino et al. regarding captive killer whale (Orcinus orca) welfare because of misrepresentations of available data and the use of citations that do not support assertions. Marino et al. misrepresent stress response concepts and erroneously cite studies, which appear to support Marino et al.’s philosophical beliefs regarding the cetacean hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. To be clear, these misrepresentations are not differences of scientific opinion, as the authors’ conclusions lack any scientific basis. More extensive review of Marino et al.’s citations reveal a dearth of empirical evidence to support their assertions. Further, Marino et al.’s approach to animal welfare is not consistent with conventional veterinary approaches to animal welfare, including their apparent opposition to use of preventative and therapeutic veterinary interventions. While Marino et al. argue that killer whales’ cognitive and spatial needs preclude management of this species under human care, misrepresentation of the citations used to support this opinion invalidates their arguments. Misleading interpretations of data relative to killer whales’ cognitive and emotional needs and specious and unsubstantiated comparisons with states experienced by humans with posttraumatic stress disorder and other conditions, represent a number of strategies used to misrepresent knowledge regarding killer whale welfare. These misrepresentations and fallacies are inconsistent with scientific ethical standards for credible, peer-reviewed journals (ICMJE, 2018), and are barriers to rigorous discourse and identification of strategies for optimizing killer whale welfare. Assertions in the paper amount to nothing more than a compilation of conclusory, philosophical statements. We would also like to mention that manuscripts such as Marino et al.’s do great damage to the fields of comparative psychology and to behavioral science as a whole.

show abstract

“…It is generally accepted that zookeepers know their animals best but this has also been proven empirically: caretakers can accurately evaluate the behavior [ 115 , 116 ], personality [ 117 , 118 ] and welfare [ 115 , 119 , 120 ] of their charges, something that scientific approaches do not always achieve [ 121 ]. When initiating a cognitive bias study in a zoo, the caretakers should be involved in the first discussions of the selecting the species and type of test, through to the test design, training stages and interpretation of results.…”

Section: Recommendations For Cognitive Bias Tests In Zoo Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Bias in Zoo Animals: An Optimistic Outlook for Welfare Assessment

Clegg¹

2018

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryCognitive bias testing has emerged as one of the most valid tools in measuring animals’ affective states, and while it has been extensively applied in farm and laboratory settings, only a few studies have taken place in zoos and aquaria. This review evaluates past cognitive bias studies on non-domesticated, “exotic” species kept in zoos or other settings and uses their experiences to make recommendations for establishing this research in zoos. The many variables inherent to functioning zoo environments will determine the scope and design of cognitive bias studies, but equally future efforts should be cognizant of the significant and unique benefits for the animals, managers, and scientists involved.AbstractCognitive bias testing measures how emotional states can affect cognitive processes, often described using the “glass half-full/half-empty” paradigm. Classical or operant conditioning is used to measure responses to ambiguous cues, and it has been reported across many species and contexts that an animal’s cognitive bias can be directly linked to welfare state, e.g., those in better welfare make more optimistic judgements. Cognitive bias testing has only recently been applied to animals and represents a key milestone in welfare science: it is currently one of the only accurate methods available to measure welfare. The tests have been conducted on many farm, laboratory, and companion animal species, but have only been carried out in zoo settings a handful of times. The aims of this review are to evaluate the feasibility of cognitive bias testing in zoos and its potential as a tool for studying zoo animal welfare. The few existing zoo cognitive bias studies are reviewed, as well as those conducted on similar, non-domesticated species. This work is then used to discuss how tests could be successfully designed and executed in zoo settings, which types of tests are most appropriate in different contexts, and how the data could be used to improve animal welfare. The review closely examines the many variables are present in the zoo which cannot be controlled as in other settings, termed here the Zoo Environment (ZE) Variables. It is recommended that tests are developed after consideration of each of the ZE Variables, and through strong collaboration between zookeepers, managers, and academic institutions. There is much unexplored potential of cognitive bias testing in the zoo setting, not least its use in investigating animal welfare in zoos. It is hoped that this review will stimulate increased interest in this topic from zoo managers, scientists, and industry regulators alike.

show abstract

Keepers' rating of emotions in captive big cats, and their use in determining responses to different types of enrichment

Cited by 18 publications

References 28 publications

Dolphins’ Willingness to Participate (WtP) in Positive Reinforcement Training as a Potential Welfare Indicator, Where WtP Predicts Early Changes in Health Status

Dolphins’ Willingness to Participate (WtP) in Positive Reinforcement Training as a Potential Welfare Indicator, Where WtP Predicts Early Changes in Health Status

Distinguishing personal belief from scientific knowledge for the betterment of killer whale welfare – a commentary

Cognitive Bias in Zoo Animals: An Optimistic Outlook for Welfare Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About